Archive for September, 2008

It is a curious fact that the neural systems we use to speak are not the same ones that we use to sing, or recite poetry.

The switching from one system, in which tone of voice is not strictly controlled, to the other, seems to be one of the cues people use to detect when someone is lying. Why place a medium capable of expressing one’s emotional state under control if you’re not hiding something?

Learning how to ‘sing’ while maintaining an otherwise normal voice is probably one of the skills politicians and other professional liars find it necessary to cultivate.

I am far less interested in what various AI researchers are unable to do than in what Eliezer Yudkowsky is able to do. If Eliezer can solve problem X, what difference does it make how many other people are unable to solve it?

So: how has Eliezer demonstrated problem-solving skills in the field of Artificial Intelligence? What progress has he made? What advancements has he been responsible for? What theoretical developments has he contributed to?

If he were on trial for having furthered the field of AI, could he be convicted? Could the court be forced to stand on reasonable doubt? Or would he be found not guilty on all counts?

Eliezer is particularly dismissive of non-quantative reasoning. Yet he has written a series of essays in which he discusses various assertions he makes about AI, its importance, and its dangers — essays remarkably free of mathematical theory, equations, or formal logical arguments.

What I remember most about reading Eric Blair’s 1984 is what it doesn’t contain. A great deal of the book addresses the corruption of language as a means for expressing thought — and the terms Blair invented for the book have entered the language as iconic examples of such corruption.

But Blair doesn’t actually bring himself to showing actual cases of the degradation of communication. He writes about how the Party edits terminology so that concepts cannot be expressed, but he never shows it; he tells, but doesn’t actually demonstrate.

It’s clear that he knew how to do this. See What is Fascism? and Politics and the English Language; they reveal beyond all doubt that Blair understood the processes by which words are rendered meaningless. But in the text that serves as a warning of what those techniques can accomplish, they’re never actually identified and shown to the reader.

Curious, isn’t it? I cannot for the life of me understand why he wrote, and did not write, in the fashion that he did. I can only recognize that he did.

As he was a much better propagandist than I will ever be, I can only presume that this reveals a comprehension of some vital truth that he possessed and I lack.

If you want honest and open feedback, then you must prevent yourself from opposing criticism and supporting praise.

The natural reaction is to reward and encourage behavior that pleases us, and punish and discourage behavior that irritates us. If feedback is to be more than others parroting what they think you wish to hear, you must take the utmost care. You must not respond when people speak ill of what you have done. You must not defend your actions. You must not justify your decisions. Remaining silent, or acknowledging that the criticism exists, is the most that can be done. You must not respond when people speak highly of what you have done. You must not say they are right. You must not return their praise with more praise. Remaining silent, or acknowledging that the praise exists, is the most that can be done.

People complain for many reasons. The most valuable reason is that they care deeply about the subject on which they’re giving feedback. The best medicines are often bitter. If you build a wall to shield yourself from worthless complaints, you shield yourself against the truth as well. It is easiest to block out that which you do not want to believe is true.